A friend just completed the renovation of a commercial building for some 100 offices for his business. However, before moving in, he was required to obtain a certificate of occupancy, certifying that the renovation met all building codes and all was proper and safe for his employees. The move was stopped cold when the inspector advised that the counter tops and sinks in the employees’s break room were not the correct height to comply with the American Disabalities Act, nor did the two expensive ice makers and refrigerator-freezers meet the requirements of the “law”. Although an architect had designed the renovation, he was forced to tear out and rebuild the kitchen counters, sinks, etc. and return the fridges, etc. all at great expense and loss of time - and productivity. When did we let this kind of ridiculous, out of control, beauracratic red tape dominate our lives? I would love to see a study estimating how much this kind of over-regulation costs our economy,
[QUOTE=Charleylake]A friend just completed the renovation of a commercial building for some 100 offices for his business. However, before moving in, he was required to obtain a certificate of occupancy, certifying that the renovation met all building codes and all was proper and safe for his employees. The move was stopped cold when the inspector advised that the counter tops and sinks in the employees’s break room were not the correct height to comply with the American Disabalities Act, nor did the two expensive ice makers and refrigerator-freezers meet the requirements of the “law”. Although an architect had designed the renovation, he was forced to tear out and rebuild the kitchen counters, sinks, etc. and return the fridges, etc. all at great expense and loss of time - and productivity. When did we let this kind of ridiculous, out of control, beauracratic red tape dominate our lives? I would love to see a study estimating how much this kind of over-regulation costs our economy,
Interesting perspective, you blame the government because the architect and/or the contractor messed up.
And if you think its no big deal, hop into a wheelchair and try to reach a sink.
[QUOTE=cenlaguy]Interesting perspective, you blame the government because the architect and/or the contractor messed up.
And if you think its no big deal, hop into a wheelchair and try to reach a sink.
I caught you in my trap. You are right. The architect should have been informed of the myriad of federal, state and local “regulationns” that protect us poor citizens from being inconvenienced, deprived, endangered, ad nauseum from ourselves.
This man had NO EMPLOYEES IN WHEELCHAIRS, out of the almost 100 in his employee, but he had to spend thousands of dollars to comply with a “federal regulation” that ENTITLES one group of individuals to preference at the cost of the rest of the citizens. I will admit that our form of democracy does provide that the majority cannot oppress the minority - but I am convinced that we have gone too far in requiring accomodations to the fringe groups that require enormous outlays at the expense of everybody else.
FYI, I have never seen the “handicapped” parking spaces at my local Albertsons even (except for lazy fat-asses who violate the law) half full, but the rest of us have to duck and dodge to find a place. GO figgure!
[QUOTE=Morning Breath]Of course, just because he doesn?t have any handicapped employees NOW doesn?t mean he never will have any. What architect or professional designer fails to take something like this into account? Your business owner friend understandably didn?t know about these regulations. People who are in the business of designing and constructing buildings ought to.
Go be an architect then. Just think, every house you design can be suited for a handicapped person, after all, you never know when a handicapped person may live in that house.
I’m going to have to disagree with you here. The architect SHOULD have known about the ADA regulations, and it would have cost hardly any extra had it have been done at the beginning of construction.
The guy should have done some minimal planning in case he ever hired someone disabled. I’m not a huge fan of “entitlements” either, but if the ADA is obeyed at the beginning of construction (something the architect should have known at the beginning), it actually doesn’t require much - if any - extra expense.
Part of my history is in disability studies, and some f this is what I’ve learned - that American society has done little other than treat the disabled like patients or put them out of sight or something, rather than try and help them contribute to society.
[QUOTE=Morning Breath]Um, no thanks. However private houses are not covered by the ADA.
Shouldn’t they be also? After all, like businesses, they are owned by private citizens. If we are all created equal, why should government officials treat some private citizens unequal to other citizens?
It’s easy to criticize architects and other private businesses but isn’t it more important to the guy who is spending $100,000 or more to build something and helping the economy than it is to our government? I understand concern that we don’t want a leaning tower of Pisa that may collapse and kill people, but it’s something completely different when congress holds private business to different standards than they hold theirselves.
[QUOTE=Avman]Shouldn’t they be also? After all, like businesses, they are owned by private citizens. If we are all created equal, why should government officials treat some private citizens unequal to other citizens?
It’s easy to criticize architects and other private businesses but isn’t it more important to the guy who is spending $100,000 or more to build something and helping the economy than it is to our government? I understand concern that we don’t want a leaning tower of Pisa that may collapse and kill people, but it’s something completely different when congress holds private business to different standards than they hold theirselves.
Which standards do you refer to?? Sounds like you been listening to some MORE RUSH NONSENSE!
[QUOTE=Morning Breath]Of course, just because he doesn?t have any handicapped employees NOW doesn?t mean he never will have any. What architect or professional designer fails to take something like this into account? Your business owner friend understandably didn?t know about these regulations. People who are in the business of designing and constructing buildings ought to.
If the architect in charge was licensed, he knew about the law and had to agree to follow the law to GET said license. If he was unlicensed, what was he doing designing a building? Something about this story doesn’t pass the sniff test.
CL, either you’re not telling the whole story here, or your “friend” isn’t. The BS-alarm is going off.
[QUOTE=Mike Foster Sr]Which standards do you refer to?? Sounds like you been listening to some MORE RUSH NONSENSE!
I just think that all public buildings, including offices of congressman, senators, and other elected officials should be held to the same accountability. Do they hold theirselves to the same standards? Shouldn’t all public schools meet the same requirements?
[QUOTE=Avman]Shouldn’t they be also? After all, like businesses, they are owned by private citizens. If we are all created equal, why should government officials treat some private citizens unequal to other citizens?
It’s easy to criticize architects and other private businesses but isn’t it more important to the guy who is spending $100,000 or more to build something and helping the economy than it is to our government? I understand concern that we don’t want a leaning tower of Pisa that may collapse and kill people, but it’s something completely different when congress holds private business to different standards than they hold theirselves.
Actually, this is one case where private buildings don’t match up to federal government standards. ALL federal government buildings have to be handicap-accessible, and they had to be re-worked rather than just new construction.
And there’s a difference between your own home and a business which many people walk through every day, some of them possibly disabled.
I know that I almost sound like a liberal on this, but I believe that the main obstacle that was in the path of the disabled was access - to an equal education (which allows them to gain what they need so that they may not have to live off the dole), access to the same places the rest of us able-bodied enjoy (such as businesses and the voting booth). They really don’t want pity - just the chance to live on the same terms as everyone else.
Joe Shapiro’s No Pity is good, quick reading on the philosophy of the modern disabled advocacy movement.
Morning Breath, if you’re going to build and want to be certain, contact not just an architect, but also someone handicapped that may be able to help you out - not someone that WORKS with them, but someone who IS handicapped.
Also, that architect MAY be liable because of his screw-up. Have your friend contact whatever local architect board AND a lawyer to see if he can get reimbursed.
[QUOTE=BoogDoc7]Actually, this is one case where private buildings don’t match up to federal government standards. ALL federal government buildings have to be handicap-accessible, and they had to be re-worked rather than just new construction.
And there’s a difference between your own home and a business which many people walk through every day, some of them possibly disabled.
I know that I almost sound like a liberal on this, but I believe that the main obstacle that was in the path of the disabled was access - to an equal education (which allows them to gain what they need so that they may not have to live off the dole), access to the same places the rest of us able-bodied enjoy (such as businesses and the voting booth). They really don’t want pity - just the chance to live on the same terms as everyone else.
Joe Shapiro’s No Pity is good, quick reading on the philosophy of the modern disabled advocacy movement.
Morning Breath, if you’re going to build and want to be certain, contact not just an architect, but also someone handicapped that may be able to help you out - not someone that WORKS with them, but someone who IS handicapped.
Also, that architect MAY be liable because of his screw-up. Have your friend contact whatever local architect board AND a lawyer to see if he can get reimbursed.
I understand that the architect is responsible for this mistake and am not contesting that, but shouldn’t it be up to the owner of the business whether or not he chooses to make his or her business handicap accessible? If a business does not have handicapped people coming through his business, why should he have those regulations placed on him? On the other hand, if a business has a large percentage of handicapped people coming through its doors, wouldn’t the owner naturally want to accomadate those clients and personell despite no regulations?
Government’s responsibility isn’t to decide what compassion is and how people are supposed to be compassionate. Nor is it the responsibility of the government to dictate to businesses or consumers how best to handle their professional affairs.
That’s where we got lost in government, we moved from government which allows people to be free as long as they don’t hurt others into a system in which government dictates special treatment of individuals over others.
[QUOTE=Avman]I understand that the architect is responsible for this mistake and am not contesting that, but shouldn’t it be up to the owner of the business whether or not he chooses to make his or her business handicap accessible? If a business does not have handicapped people coming through his business, why should he have those regulations placed on him? On the other hand, if a business has a large percentage of handicapped people coming through its doors, wouldn’t the owner naturally want to accomadate those clients and personell despite no regulations?
Government’s responsibility isn’t to decide what compassion is and how people are supposed to be compassionate. Nor is it the responsibility of the government to dictate to businesses or consumers how best to handle their professional affairs.
That’s where we got lost in government, we moved from government which allows people to be free as long as they don’t hurt others into a system in which government dictates special treatment of individuals over others.
I’m siding with Morning Breath here. There are businesses that handicap people WOULD frequent were they able to get into the door, but society - until recently - has largely excluded them by not making the necessary arrangements. We WERE in a period (before ADA) when there were no regs...and NO accomodations.
I agree with you about governmental duties, but I don’t see this as “compassionate.” This is what businesses should almost be doing automatically not out of compassion, but because they need to accomodate ALL members of society. They shouldn’t do it out of pity, they should do it because not every person can walk
On your last argument, “ which government dictates special treatment of individuals over others,” by not including ADA requirements, a business is is dictating special treatment of the able-bodied, and EXCLUDING the disabled. Few - if any - accomodations cannot be used by abled people (and actually make life easier for others, such as children and the elderly).
[QUOTE=UnregisteredGG]I think it’s wrong that a business owner can’t decide for himself if he wants to make his establisment accessible to handicapped people. If he doesn’t care to do it I don’t think he should have to. This is the kind of government meddling that puts business owners under a burden of regulation and expense that makes it very difficult to get started and to operate. Government building and public buildings should accommodate them but I think private businesses should have the option. To have a regulator come around and tell you that you must have a wheelchair ramp and the doors must be wider for wheelchairs, etc. is wrong. I’m sympathizing with business owners who are trying to make a living.
You’re missing something.
Accomodations AREN’T that expensive. A wheelchair ramp ISN’T that much money.
And if it’s a NEW building project (which this thread started as), having handicapped accomodations is even LESS expensive if they’re done from the beginning than if added in later.
The problem with your argument is that it’s discriminatory. It’s akin to having a “no coloreds” sign on the window. This isn’t about catering to a clientele, it’s about providing freedom to those that have been the most discriminated against since history began.
Accomodations AREN’T that expensive. A wheelchair ramp ISN’T that much money.
And if it’s a NEW building project (which this thread started as), having handicapped accomodations is even LESS expensive if they’re done from the beginning than if added in later.
The problem with your argument is that it’s discriminatory. It’s akin to having a “no coloreds” sign on the window. This isn’t about catering to a clientele, it’s about providing freedom to those that have been the most discriminated against since history began.
The question of the hour is: how perfect of a society do we want? Do we want to surrender ALL our liberties so that NO ONE can ever be unhappy or inconvenienced? I’m all for reasonable accomodations. But, except for Wal-Mart parking lots, oftentimes the people I see park in handicapped spaces look perfectly healthy to me. And oftentimes those spots are mostly not occupied.
Sarcasm aside, though, “providing freedom” works both ways. For if disabled people can’t access a business, chances are, they’ll take their business elsewhere. Which to me is a FAR more effective tool than a government buresucrat mucking things up at the last minute.
When y’all are old and in walkers or wheelchairs you won’t be as gripey about wheelchair ramps and hand bars in bathrooms.
As far as the handicapped spaces at the Albertson’s, do you really want to gripe because you had to spend a few extra seconds WALKING. I can assure you that the people who really need those space would swap places with you if they could.
[QUOTE=Morning Breath] ---I’m no liberal, but everything from levees on the Mississippi River, to Social Security, to agricultural subsidies, to invasions of foreign countries, to government-financed education, to faith-based aid to the poor, to a call for government to reflect “moral values,” has been based on the exact opposite of the principle you espouse. Most of these programs are enthusiastically supported by Republicans.
Which is exactly why I don’t always side with the Republicans. I used to believe that Republicans were for less government but after watching the Republicans in power, I now believe that each election cycle we are given a choice between a big government party and a different type of big government party.
[QUOTE=Morning Breath]---government has always done that; the most obvious example is its longtime favoring of whites “over” blacks and Indians. Likewise, someone has always gotten funding, special programs or protection, and the like, since the dawn of the USA and before.
Not trying to flame you Av, I appreciate your perspective, but I think the distinctions you’re drawing do not hold up.
Sure government has always done that but are you willing to say that when government favored whites over blacks that it was right? Why then should we believe that government favoritism of one group of people now is right? You see, I believe in the apparent myth that all people are created equal, that despite our indifferences and inabilities, we are still capable of accomplishing many things in life. Government does not help the problem, only aids it.
